Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item

From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)kakidata(dot)dk>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Date: 2002-02-25 01:11:43
Message-ID: 3C798F4F.58F15C90@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > > * Make it easier to create a database owned by someone who can't createdb,
> > > > perhaps CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH USER = "user"
> > > CREATE DATABASE dbname WITH OWNER = "user"
> > A much better idea. There is no conflict in using OWNER here.
>
> Does this have the multiple "WITH xxx" clauses which were discussed
> earlier? That is a nonstarter for syntax. There are other places in the
> grammar having "with clauses" and multiple arguments or subclauses, and
> having the shift/reduce issues resolved...
>

The syntax of the CREATE SCHEMA SQL standard command is

CREATE SCHEMA AUTHORIZATION userid

Shouldn't we be using

CREATE DATABASE AUTHORIZATION userid

to be consistent?

--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-02-25 01:24:49 Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item
Previous Message Lee Harr 2002-02-25 00:58:32 missing foreign key fails silently using COPY

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-02-25 01:11:57 Re: Basic DOMAIN Support
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-02-24 23:34:42 Basic DOMAIN Support